Terris v Crown Catering Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain her complaint of unfair dismissal on the basis that she was not employed by the Respondent ("Company A"). The Tribunal found that the Appellant was treated as a casual worker by Company A following a contractual change in catering services at a leisure centre owned by a local borough ("The Borough"). Prior to March 1990, catering services were provided by Company B under contract with The Borough, and the Appellant was employed by Company B under a contract of service. After The Borough terminated the contract with Company B, Company A took over the catering services. The Appellant signed written terms with Company A but was treated as a casual worker without mutual obligations to provide or accept work. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was an independent contractor and not an employee within the meaning of the relevant employment protection legislation.

The Appellant appealed, arguing that the Tribunal failed to address key factual and legal questions, including whether there was a relevant transfer of employment from Company B to Company A and whether any contractual changes altered her employment status. The appeal was heard by Judge Clark, who found that the Tribunal erred by not considering these questions and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant was employed by Company B under a contract of service prior to 29 March 1990.
2. Whether there was a relevant transfer of the undertaking or part of the undertaking from Company B to Company A, resulting in the continuation of the Appellant’s employment.
3. If a transfer occurred, whether the Appellant was employed immediately before the transfer so that her employment passed to Company A.
4. Whether the Appellant’s contract with Company A was lawfully varied after the transfer such that it ceased to be a contract of service and became a contract for services.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Tribunal failed to make necessary findings of fact and law, particularly regarding the alleged transfer of employment from Company B to Company A.
• Key questions about employment status before and after the transfer were left unanswered.
• The historical nature of the employment relationship was relevant and should have been considered.

Respondent's Arguments

• It was conceded that the Appellant may have been employed by Company B and that a relevant transfer may have occurred, but the critical issue was the employment status at termination with Company A.
• The Tribunal properly focused on the position at termination, concluding the Appellant was a casual worker and not an employee.
• The Tribunal’s conclusion was open on the evidence and law.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that the Tribunal had a duty to consider all aspects of the employment relationship and that no single factor was decisive in determining employment status. The Tribunal had relied on established case law emphasizing mutuality of obligation and the nature of the working relationship. However, the Court found that the Tribunal erred by failing to address critical questions regarding the employment status before and after the alleged transfer from Company B to Company A. The Court emphasized that the historical relationship could be relevant to the ultimate determination and that the Tribunal had failed to give proper reasons for its decision, breaching procedural obligations. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a fresh Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the identified issues.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decision was to ALLOW THE APPEAL and remit the case to the Industrial Tribunal for reconsideration.

The direct consequence is that the original Tribunal decision is set aside and the matter will be reheard with proper consideration of the transfer and employment status issues. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the case underscores the necessity for Tribunals to address all relevant factual and legal questions and to provide adequate reasons for their decisions.